The SitePoint Forums have moved.

You can now find them here.
This forum is now closed to new posts, but you can browse existing content.
You can find out more information about the move and how to open a new account (if necessary) here.
If you get stuck you can get support by emailing forums@sitepoint.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

People don't know about CSS + CSS does not fit people's needs as well as other options = People don't know how to adapt what they know about CSS to do the jobs they want it to do (or don't want it to do.)

Multiple Choice:
- People don't know about CSS
- CSS does not fit people's needs as well as other options
- Combinations of above

Douglas

I'd say both and more.

It looks to me like we're in a transitional period.

The main benifits of CSS should be well known by anyone that takes an interest in building websites. Smaller filesizes, easier cross-site design changes, easier editing of content etc... Why anyone would still build a site with spacer gifs and deeply nested tables is beyond me.

However, one doesn't need CSS-P(ositioning) to enjoy these benifits. It's very possible to build a table based (so called 'hybrid') site that takes maximum advantage of CSS, staying well away from positioning. As a matter of fact, I would even dare to recommend such an aproach to a CSS beginner. The learning curve is less steep and one doesn't need to change ones fundamental aproach to building sites, i.e., one can still 'think in tables'.

CSS positioning is more difficult and I'd say there's two main reasons for that.

First, browsers are more inconsistent between them in rendering positioned elements, so a deeper knowledge of individual browser behaviour and the various workarounds is needed.

But most of all, using CSS-P requires a fundamental change in one's understanding of what a webpage is. One needs to seperate content from presentation in one's head first, before one can apply it to a webpage.

Another reason might be simple conservatism. People just happen to be set in their ways.

I'd like to comment on the learning curve on CSS Positioning compared to a table based design. I recently started university and our group contained several people who had no knowledge at all about HTML.

I recommended them to skip diving into HTML with tables and to check out XHTML/CSS right from the start, but oh well .. one did and one didn't. The interesting thing that happend was that the one who did choose to learn to make a XHTML/CSS design right away succeeded in making something complex a lot sooner than the guy using tables.

Perhaps we are all used to tables (although I must say that I am slowly starting to forget how to use them 'efficientely'), but to the beginning user all those nested tables etc. seem to be extremely confusing. But you're completely right when you say it requires a change in understanding a 'webpage' when you move from tables to XHTML/CSS.

The 'freedom' of a XHTML/CSS seemed to be a lot more logical to the other person. If he wanted to position something somewhere, he could. The only two things that took him a while to understand was the CSS box model and then there were those inevident "why does this happend if I do this?" moments.

Ok, I've been reading the posts here and I want to say that all of you pretty much have got good things to say.

I learned bulky confusing tables when I first started learning web design 3 years ago. I hated it. Tables seemed to be too much work for the output.

After investing so much time in learning this confusing method of designing web pages and possibly developing some health condition from the excess typing, I began learning CSS earlier this year. For the past 4-5 months I have been off and on using it, and learning many complexities.

Learning CSS was to me easy. Had I known about XHTML / CSS when I first began you can be sure I never wouldb'e wasted the time I did on useless fat tables.

I'm an OK webdesigner. I do it for pleasure, and I design my own sites. I started on a more complex layout and though it would be a good idea to use CSS on it instead of tables.

In tables this layout would be far to dense to edit easily. In fact it is. To test my theory I made up the same file using xhtml compliant tables. What did I get? CSS cut about 2/3rds of the code. I went from many hundreds of lines of tables to under 100 (around 70). CSS is easier to learn no doubt. It is also more valuable to learn even for the guy like me who does this stuff not for a job but for fun.

It is my opinion that CSS can produce awesome jaw dropping sites. CSS can match tables in most ways, and as I've found with far less work on behalf of the designer. It is a matter of time. You guys all know far more about css than I do, but I still like to try and make my once table layouts in CSS. While learning it may take me longer but I'm happy when I'm done and I can make massive changes very easily.

Also, CSS Zengarden designs rock. I think there are a number there that deserve recognition. Not all CSS is bland and the same and those designers did a great job breaking free of the mold.

As more graphic-minded people move to css, the limits will continue to be pressed as to the designs that css can churn out.

I'm a beginner at CSS, and like I said I just do this for fun. Its not a question of looking for great css sites in existence, its a question of making one. It is possible. Stop thinking of the limitations and maybe you might surprise yourself by making a very un-css looking site.